MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046627156 · doi:10.1542/peds.2004-2588

Combined Influence of Body Mass Index and Waist Circumference on Coronary Artery Disease Risk Factors Among Children and Adolescents

2005· article· en· W2046627156 on OpenAlexafffund
Ian Janssen, Peter T. Katzmarzyk, Sathanur R. Srinivasan, Wei Chen, Robert M. Malina, Claude Bouchard, Gerald S. Berenson

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsMedicineWaistBody mass indexOverweightCoronary artery diseaseObesityCircumferenceRisk factorDemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: In adult populations, it is recognized widely that waist circumference (WC) predicts health risk beyond that predicted by BMI alone; current recommendations for adults are that a combination of BMI and WC be used to classify obesity-related health risk. For children and adolescents, however, little is known about the combined influence of BMI and WC on health outcomes. The objectives of this study were to determine whether BMI and WC predict coronary artery disease (CAD) risk factors independently for children and adolescents and to assess the clinical utility of using WC in combination with BMI to identify CAD risk. METHODS: Subjects included 2597 black and white, 5- to 18-year-old, male and female youths. Outcome measures included 7 CAD risk factors. In the first analysis step, BMI and WC were used as continuous variables to predict CAD risk factors. In the second analysis step, participants were placed into normal-weight, overweight, and obese BMI categories and, within each BMI category, CAD risk factors were compared for groups with low and high WC values. RESULTS: When BMI and WC were included in the same regression model to predict CAD risk factors, the added variance above that predicted by BMI or WC alone was minimal, which indicated that BMI and WC did not have independent effects on the risk factors. For example, for systolic blood pressure, BMI alone explained 7.3% of the variance, WC alone explained 7.7% of the variance, and the combination of BMI and WC explained 8.1% of the variance. When BMI and WC values were categorized with a threshold approach, WC provided information on CAD risk beyond that provided by BMI alone, particularly when the categories were used to predict elevated CAD risk factor levels. For instance, in the overweight BMI category, the high-WC group was approximately 2 times more likely to have high triglyceride levels, high insulin levels, and the metabolic syndrome, compared with the low-WC group. CONCLUSION: These findings provide some evidence that a combination of BMI and WC should be used in clinical settings to evaluate the presence of elevated health risk among children and adolescents.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations292
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207